tv [untitled] August 17, 2013 8:00pm-8:31pm PDT
cost contingency for contract number wd2581 in the amount of 8 million 5495 thousand and an increase in the contract duration of up to 53 consecutive cal car days and authorize future modifications. >> my name is jif bajwa, the item in front of you is regarding the nit tunnel, in april of this year, you had actually approved a baseline in which this amount of 8 million dollar and 53 days was counted for. this is for you to transfer that approved money into the concession contingencies and authorized general manager so we can start using it and the use of that is when we came for the notice of change, we explained to you that these are
the potential or pending change orders, approved change orders, i think was approved somewhere in april 12, so that's what this item is, i would be glad to give you the response to your questions and reasons for these changes, you already have been briefed by julie, the gas tunnel is the water seepage as well as the harder rocks which we are encountering, for your information, the project now is 83% complete. we have lost less of 900 feet to do it, but this seems to be the most challenging at this moment because of the water seepage. >> not the harder rock, the water seepage? >> the harder rock is also part of it but i think water is what's most challenging now. >> any questions? any public comment? is there a motion? >> so moved. >> moved by commissioner caen, seconded by commissioner moran,
all those in favor, signify by saying aye. . er aye. >> opposed? thank you very much. >> item 10, approve the increase in the construction contract cost contingency for contract number wd2551 in the amount of 449 million 443, 646 dollars. >> okay, this item is similar to what i did discuss earlier. it was approved in april and what we are asking is that the approved amounts you had done in april was 88.7 million dollars, we're asking part of that money to be transferred to the construction contingencies to cover all these pending change orders or potential change orders, trends and to some extent, some of the risk. >> alright. any public comment?
is there a motion or discussion by the board? >> so moved. >> moved, seconded. >> seconded. >> commissioners, all those in favor, signify by saying aye? >> aye. >> opposed? motion carries. >> item 111, public hearing discussion and possible action regarding schedules of rate and is charges of the san francisco public utilities commission power enterprise for the phase one of the cleanpowersf community choice aggregation program for renewable power procurement within san francisco. >> manager kelly for some comments? >> good afternoon, commissioners, so, a little bit of what has been happening. as you remember on july 9, we heard a presentation about not to exceed rate for cleanpowersf program, at that meeting, you asked staff to look at reducing the not to exceed rate to 11.5
and now the rate before you is that for your consideration. you also asked us to meet with the labor groups to determine if we could address their concerns and that they had raised about the proposed cc a program, and so i would like to call up robert hale, our assistant general manager of power to give you an update on that subject. >> thank you, general manager kelly, general manager for power, as the general manager just said, we have been meeting in recent weeks with managers for labor representing various labor unions with our ren s*ept t*if team, at our meetings, we talked about implementing the labor council's principles and to remind you what those principles w the labor council adopted a resolution with the three principles that power purchase by cleanpowersf be
from unionized california facilities, secondly, that renewable energy generation projects be subject to projects labor agreements so that component of the local build, and also that energy efficiency projects, another component of our local build be subject to project labor agreements as well. i can report that with respect to the first item, the puc cannot limit procurement to unionized california facilities and in our discussion, members of the labor council agreed with that assessment. with regard to the issue of pla's for energy projects both generation and energy efficiency, you know, the labor representatives were helpful in sharing some examples of project labor agreements that they have with other jurisdictions, both private and public, but nothing has been resolved in these conversations. city rules require certain
requirements to be met before a city agency could enter into a pla, it's certainly a considerable amount of work on our part if we were to engage in that effort and quite honestly, we're not sure that all conditions could be met, and so with that, i'll turn it back to the general manager, thank you. >> so, the last thing i would like to say is i really want to thank our staff who has worked tirelessly in coming up with the balancing the three items about being a green, affordable and have opportunity for green jobs and i just want to commend the staff and say thank you for all your hard work, it's been a pleasure working with you guys. so, with that, i'll turn it over to you. >> alright, i have a question for our city attorney who's here with us today.
does the board ordinance compel this commission to set rates and sign a contract with shell or merely authorize this commission to do so with certain goals and standards are met? >> [inaudible] city attorney's office, the board resolution and i'm referring to the one from 2012 authorized the general manager to execute the contract with shell subject to certain conditions, one of which was adopting rates and forwarding those to the board for their subsequent action, so it doesn't compel the signing of the contract, it authorizes you after you set rates which is the item that's before you today, whether or not to adopt the not to exceed rate. >> so, if we choose not to adopt, what is the impact?
>> you won't meet the condition to the effectiveness of the shell contract and the general manager won't be able to implement the contract. >> so, the board vote was actually an authorization, not a compulsory compelling to act? >> correct. >> i will recognize fran chess ka vita for a motion? >> thank you, mr. president. so, i'm so pleased to be able to put this motion on the table because i feel like today is a historic moment for the san francisco commission as well as the city of san francisco to show its dedication to reduce greenhouse gas emission and being a leader in climate change, this is only a vote to approve the not to exceed rate, it represents an unprecedented opportunity for san francisco to lead the country by example
and show our determination to protect our city and residents from the impacts of emerging climate, we'll also be able to create a new generation of green collar workers and build our own clean power system. we wouldn't have arrived at this historic moment without the leadership of the city and this commission, this commission brings a range of expertise, relationships and perspective and has allowed us to set a not to exceed rate that will allow for 100% certified renewable power by the state, real job and local build-out and job creation at a competitive price. i also want to acknowledge the hard work of the staff as well. we asked them to find a comfortable compromise with this program in order to address the various concerns that have emerged from labor to the power mix to the affordability of this program. we have before us a sweet spot
rate that will allow us to meet our city and state policy objectives, move the program forward and resolve any outstanding questions. this is only a not to exceed rate vote. community choice aggregation is proven to be the fastest and most effective way for us to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions as a municipality. the cc a model is being implemented not only across the state but across the country. we need to act now. i understand that the current program proposal is not final and that today's vote is simply not a not to exceed rate vote. i also know we cannot determine the final program details until we set the rate, so it is with a great sense of urgency, responsibility and honor that i make the motion to approve the not to exceed rate without further delay.
>> 11.5 is what you're suggesting? >> is there a second? >> i second. >> okay, we'll move to -- is there a finance presentation? there's none. why is it on the agenda then? >> we have staff, we have proposed not to exceed rates, finance presentation and a rate fairness board presentation. are those still on task? >> if i may, today rydstrom,, those were the same materials presented before, so for the completion of the packet, we then forwarded it and included them. >> this is not a reconfiguration or reassessment f, it's merely an articulation of what has taken place in the past? >> yes, sir. >> thank you very much. we'll proceed to public comment on the motion before us, first i would like to call on jeremy pollock who's a legislative aid to avalos who i presume could
not be here today. >> that's correct, good afternoon, chair torres, commissioner, thanks for the opportunity to speak, supervisor avalos regrets he couldn't be here, i urge you to approve these not to exceed rates, a majority of the board approved this almost a year ago, we approved their contract knowing we were contracting for shell for a short term, 4 and a half year contract to initiate cleanpowersf, at the time the proposed rates were significantly higher and we had fewer [inaudible] build-out rate, if you have any question about that, there is one way to find out of the board's opinion, approve the rate and is we have 30 days to weigh in. the fairness rate has discussed the not to exceed rate six time, i believe this is the sixth time you have considered this, i applaud you and your
staff for the admirable work you have done, but we cannot afford a further delay. the board of the supervisors supports this program while the mayor, pg&e and its union oppose it, you know you are feeling pressure but we cannot have additional delay. and i believe we disasgraoe with the city attorney's opinion or we have questions about it because the charter section gives the puc for the responsibility of establishing rates to meet financial needs of the system. any further delay will show that we are in a constitutional crisis caused by a city department failing, the board stands ready to approve these rates but nothing more can happen until you take action. therefore, if there is further delay, i have no choice but to request the city attorney to
draft the charter or explore other options to provide the method to provide this stalemate, it is too important to allow this to die in the vine, it provides leadership and this will long be remembered for the action you take today. >> do you wish to respond, deputy city attorney? to those comments? >> no, i think you just said they would request the city attorney to draft something, to that certainly would have been the supervisor's purview. >> well, he quoted on an ordinance which was in conflict of what she said earlier? >> in the charter which governs the rate setting process, it sits, one of the responsibilities of the puc is establishes rates to have financial needs of the system and we interpret that as the policy maker, the board of supervisors have provided the cleanpowersf system and it's your responsibility to set the rates for it, and if you do not
set the rates, that could be an example of you not carrying out the charter mandate. >> established does not mean monday, does it. >> the statute says you should establish rates, i'm no lawyer, but i would say that sounds pretty clear to me. >> it would be clearer fw that's shall, not just establish. >> of course we can leave it up to the lawyers to word smith it, i believe the intent of the voters -- >> it's not up to word smiting, thank you so much for being with us and give our best to supervisor avalos. >> thank you, i will. >> i would like to call on the environmental commission, rich varsay. >> thank you, president torres, commissioners, thanks for the invitation. joshua arsay, as my capacity as president of the environment commission where we had a long discussion about the proposal and what's before you today,
it's obviously a big decision, it's something that a lot of people have been working on a long time, a lot of us in this room, a lot of us wearing different hats and capacities. what i wanted to share is that we had two or three hour discussion over the environment commission, at the end of which we couldn't come to a consensus position. we asked a lot of questions, questions about the local build-out, the nature of the renewable energy credits that have increased nr the mix and what that impacts on the underlying goals of the program, both over at our shop and just generally speaking, questions around local hiring, the number of jobs and there was a lot of reveals, the big concerning thing i think that's safe to say for all of us, when it comes to local build-out, we're stuck at least from the staff the idea that there's a draft of an outline of a plan and that was something that was concerning i would say. it's not to say that we obviously all know where we want to go, it's that the concern i think from the environment commission is we're not there, we want to see
concrete plans, we didn't get that. the other reveal i think was that the -- ms. malcolm talked about that we can actually maybe, something that was a big reveal, something issuing the solar bonds and doing a local build-out like now, yesterday, our director from environment told us we're going backward on the program, we want to be going forward. it's safe to say if i was to distill where we're at, big concerns about how we fix all these things after you set rates, that's the big question, not to to* say there's a big leadership capacity, mayor's office, department of environment, but these are the questions that i have and i wish i had a position to tell you over at our shop, we don't have it. thanks. >> if i may, president torres, or vice chair commissioner anglo caen might have -- >> i need to call on
commissioner vietor first. >> i had questions for you, i know we were eager to see the draft outline of the plan and the program, but i think as i said and just to reiterate, today's vote is on the not to exceed rate. until we approve what that rate is, we would not be able to determine what the program of the plan is and we have several months before the launch date, how many days is it, 242 days i believe, once the rates are approved to figure out what those details are, so i just want to remind you and your commission of that because that is not what's before us today. >> we want to hear how you change that after the rates are changed. >> absolutely and we hope to have several conversations that will move us towards those answers in the several month, i would like to invite kim malcolm up to response, or barb. >> and if i may, just if it's helpful vietor, the vice chair
of the commission, and i think there's probably not additional thoughts that could happen because as i say, we don't have a position, but vice-president caen could probably share some thoughts on this as well. >> either before or after of what was presented at the commission. >> i think it's best to call upon the witnesses that you prefer and then we'll have a response from supervisor -- commissioner caen. >> kim malcolm, director of cleanpowersf, i was at the commission on the environment last week for about three and a half hours, we had a long discussion, the commissioners had a lot of questions. i was asked to go there to provide an overview and an update on the program and on the rate setting process, and i did give them a presentation that was a whole lot like the one you have before you today. i was not asked to provide a lot of detail about a build-out plan although there was some discussion about it.
>> great, thank you very much. >> alright, i just want to announce that if people are outside and need a place to sit, we've made accommodations for room 416 until 5:00 p.m. because we have to exit this hearing room no later than 5:00 because the pedestrian safety commission will be meeting in this room, so we don't want to be -- >> wow, what a great escape. >> it's not an escape, it's a requirement under the law. room 416. commissioner caen, you wanted to make a comment. >> my name is anglo caen, i'm the member of the environment commission. >> congratulations. >> well, i we meet every other mother. i cast a vote against sending a statement here that night in lieu of coming here today, you know, my differences in terms of procedures and protocol didn't allow me to kind of vote
my conscience that night. i have always been about making sure that the green initiative made both dollars and cents, i recall a few years ago watching president obama get grilled because people that weren't so green were saying, you know, this is not a priority, so i would go back to the commission and say, hey, look, you need to make sure that the metrics of your program show the economic impact and show jobs to those people that are not connected to this, in this way, those people that don't drive priases, those are two group that is we need to bring together. i mean, truth be told, me and president arsy shared the same ideal that we always have to show the economic potential of these things, and jobs first.
so, the ideal that -- the ideal that this program here and what we have now is a down grade from where the original stated goals were, when we originally looked at, we said there would be job in, in city generations and they said, we can't do that because it's overpriced, if price was the only virtue we serve here in san francisco, why isn't wal-mart in the city, that's not the case, and if we're going to set rates, then we need to put some other things on the table, we need to make sure there is a bundle agreement, so we know the true cost of what we're doing before we set rates. it's important, so i'm here to tell you that i think i could speak for the majority of our commission to say that this needs to go back to the drawing board and we're here to work with you immediately to bring this back out so that we could tell both sides of the city,
those people that have money and those people that do not have money that there'sing something in the great initiative for you. >> thank you very much, vice-president king. >> the representative from bomont, ken, welcome. >> good afternoon, commissioner, ken cleveland, i also wear a hat as the treasure of sustainable growth. i have to agree with the commission on the environment, this proposal as it's being proposed is a down grade from what it was proposed a year and a half ago. i think we need to look at what jobs local, are we going to create enough jobs locally, are we going the have renewable power? this is just not the program that we deserve in san francisco, so on behalf of the building owner's association of
san francisco and the alliance for jobs and sustainable growth which is a partnership of organized labor here in the city and the business community, we say stop, go back, get a better deal. thank you. >> commissioner vietor? >> i have a question, and it's not for you and i think the commissioners from the environment left, but it has to deal with about what you said about agreeing with the commission on the environment. my question was there was not a resolution that was passed by that commission. >> i'm agreeing with the spokes people tonight. >> they said they felt like a majority f the commission but there was no action by that commission, correct? >> i don't know that for a fact. >> >> the environmental commission did not take a position on this issue, that should be the order. >> thank you. >> jamie tukey, is that correct? >> that's correct. >> representing marine energy authority. >> i aols also a resident of
san francisco. >> you work in marine but also a resident of san francisco. it eats always the reverse. >> sometimes that's the case, i want to encourage you to exercise your leadership and give residences and businesses a choice in our power supply, now's ao time for change and now's your opportunity to make this happen and start moving things forward to cleanpowersf, it will create jobs and local power, it will reduce greenhouse gas emissions, it worked in the city of richmond where we serve 80% of the customer base, we reduced more than 30 thousand tons of greenhouse gas emission, we built local power, we have three more projects in the works, we're implementing energy efficiency programs and these are all creates local jobs and benefiting our local economy, if it worked in marine and richmond, i know it can work here as well.
one thing i have to acknowledge here today is the shell shock campaign that we see. i was with the marine program before we launched service when pg&e spent 44 million dollars marketing against our program and trying to defeat this happening in marine. we know that the shell shock campaign is being led by the ibew and you can't ignore the connections they have with pg&e, being with marine when we saw all of the marketing campaigns against our program there, it's clear that the same designer who did the campaign in marine against our program that was funded by pg&e is the same organization who's doing it ear in san francisco, do not be fooled by the misinformation that's being circulated -- >> the organization's name? >> jason freed knows the organization's name, and please don't lose site of the amazing changes that you guys can implement here in san francisco. thank you.
>> shawn marshal representing lean energy usa. welcome. >> thank you. good afternoon, commissioners, thank you very much for having us here today. over the past several months as director kelly pointed out, the commission has asked for several things to go back to the drawing board and be revisited. one was a recalibration of the program so that it could be more rate competitive, could be more affordable to folk ins tan san francisco, two, there would be more work done with the advocates on the build-out program and i know there's been progress to date on that score and three, discussions with the labor council and groups to come to some resolution around some of their key issues, all of these three requests have been met or are ongoing, those have been reported out. cleanpowersf was authorized almost a year ago, time is wasting, you have an opportunity to take advantage
of some very good power rates in the marketplace right now but those don't last forever and all of this delay is making it potentially more expensive for your customers. you've also invested millions to date to get this program where it is today and as time goes on, time is money and it's costing your rate payers money, so we encourage you to follow through on your investment and keep going with the program. i think it's important for you even though you xwies are in a vice grip, i've been a mayor, i'm the current vice-mayor of the city of middle valley, i know it's hard to be in opposition of the politics of the mayor's office, we know that's what's going on here. >> no, it's not, the mayor has not spoken to me once on that issue, and i'm smart snuff to make my own due diligence and make my mind up, please done put that on our shoulders. >> thank you, sir, i appreciate the feedback, but what's asking
you to do is take the long view on this issue so that it's really not about shell, it's not about rec, it's not about the ibew or the politics of staff. what it really is about is about the local long term opportunity for local build-out that is not supported by taxpayer revenue or general obligation bonds, please take the long view, i apologize for any insult. thank you. >> mr. hunter stern. >> ibew1045, thank you, mr. president, commissioners, hunter's chair, ibew1245, we represent workers at 28 different utilities here in central california, we also through stop the shell shock have over 12 thousand people who have signed on the petition saying no to shell energy. three things very quickly, we certainly talked a lot about
these issues, the first is our members work generate electricity, we want to continue to have them work generating electricity here in central northern california, secondly and probably most importantly, we've looked very hard at the issues around build-out opportunities, we've worked very hard statewide in partnership with our brothers and sisters in the building trades through two different coalitions, we will continue to do that. this is the goal. more renewable energy for the city and county of san francisco, more renewable energy for the state of california, but we need to be sure that that work is here and it's in front of us, and we will continue to work with our colleagues, brothers and sisters both in the building trades and here in the city and county of san francisco through a variety of community based organizations to get people back to work.